Samsung Compares iPhone Features To Cup Holders

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Oh how I love it when Samsung and Apple go at it. We are always guaranteed to get name calling, one liners and zingers like this. :D

An Apple study to determine whether people would buy phones to get certain Apple patented features is similar to asking people to choose a car based on its cup holders, an expert hired by Samsung testified Friday.
Click to expand...
 
Hey now, cup holders are important when buying a car.

Worst thing is getting a McDonalds large sweet tea and not having a cup holder that can take its girth
 
Cup holders matter, the ones in cars do as well.

I got an 89 Honda Accord, and while the car itself is awesome the complete lack of cup holders is a real problem. No idea what they were thinking when they made it.
 
Sounds like an accurate analogy. Cup holder is petty and obvious relative to the features that a car buyer would actively look at such as engine, in-car GPS, handling, gas mileage, etc. None of the Apple patents have ever been a consideration when purchasing phones plus they either preexisted like slide-to-unlock and linking and/or obvious like universal search and scroll bounce which is based on gravity. Is Apple going to sue basketball makers since it has the same bouncing behavior when it reaches the end?

How did the Apple patent troll even get the 'quick link' filed in 1996 approved when it appeared in lynx browser in 1992 and there are even prior uses before that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynx_(web_browser)

https://www.google.com/patents/US5946647
 
First to patent, screw prior art, is the current law of the land. It is great for patent trolls.
 
"Your honor...aren't you tired of this shit already?"
 
You bet your ass cup holders are important when choosing a car. That's always on my list of things to check.
 
Tomorrow's news, "Apple claims to have invented cup holders, sues automakers."
 
Good thing apple does not make cars, they'd probably patent the concept of a device that can hold a cup while driving. Then all the car makers would have to recall all their models to have the cup holders removed or they'd get sued.
 
k1pp3r said:
Hey now, cup holders are important when buying a car.

Worst thing is getting a McDonalds large sweet tea and not having a cup holder that can take its girth
Click to expand...

I don't have any cup holders in my car :(
 
But back to the point, wouldn't ANY manufacturer try to understand if the things they patent are what bring in the customers.....isn't that the whole point of a patent???

Why go through the process of a patent if it has no appeal to customers? Even the things people will say "to stifle competition", are still features that people want...hence you not wanting your competition to have.
 
Current practice appears to be to shotgun blast patents, then find one that fits later to try to force competitors out of the market. These polls were done for the purpose of exhorting money via the courts, or as a means to push competition out of the way. It is just another facet of their attempt to defend the dollar value they are assigning the foibles described by their multitude of BS patents.
 
I decided not to buy a car based on interior design, namely cup holders and lip on door to use as arm rest. Cup holder was to far back and required driver to contort the arm to grab a drink from it. And door was extremely uncomfortable to rest my right arm on in passenger side. Both big no no's for me as I travel a lot with my wife and kids on weekends :p
 
mi7chy said:
Sounds like an accurate analogy. Cup holder is petty and obvious relative to the features that a car buyer would actively look at such as engine, in-car GPS, handling, gas mileage, etc. None of the Apple patents have ever been a consideration when purchasing phones plus they either preexisted like slide-to-unlock and linking and/or obvious like universal search and scroll bounce which is based on gravity. Is Apple going to sue basketball makers since it has the same bouncing behavior when it reaches the end?

How did the Apple patent troll even get the 'quick link' filed in 1996 approved when it appeared in lynx browser in 1992 and there are even prior uses before that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynx_(web_browser)

https://www.google.com/patents/US5946647
Click to expand...
seriously...if you're going to gripe about something you should at least understand that thing you're discussing

lynx doesn't automatically dial a phone number when you click on (xxx) xxx-xxxx. it doesn't open a link and know what to do with it at all unless it's an actual hyperlink. A mailto: tells it to open a mail client but if you're browsing in a window on your phone and there happens to be a [email protected] anywhere on the page our phones no longer need mailto: links in order to understand what to do with them.

It seems obvious to you because you have a brain and you can comprehend patterns like [email protected] or (xxx) xxx-xxx and xxx-xxx-xxxx and xxxxxxxxxx. But to a computer it's all just 1's&0's.

Why would you consider the software engineering that went into developing that thing that all mobile devices and end users take for granted now, over twenty years later, as a non-event or insignificant "trolling." Trolling would only apply if Apple patented the implementation and then never used it. It's so bizarre to see people slinging poo at the wall and seeing what might possibly stick and then stand back and accuse Apple of doing that to Samsung.
 
LMAO, gotta love the [H]ate of all things Apple despite the facts:

There are seven patents at issue in the latest case -- five held by Apple and two by Samsung. Apple has accused Samsung of infringing US patents Nos. 5,946,647; 6,847,959; 7,761,414; 8,046,721; and 8,074,172. All relate to software features, such as "quick links" for '647, universal search for '959, background syncing for '414, slide-to-unlock for '721, and automatic word correction for '172. Overall, Apple argues that the patents enable ease of use and make a user interface more engaging.

Samsung, meanwhile, has accused Apple of infringing US patents Nos. 6,226,449 and 5,579,239. The '449 patent, which Samsung purchased from Hitachi, involves camera and folder organization functionality. The '239 patent, which Samsung also acquired, covers video transmission functionality and could have implications for Apple's use of FaceTime.
Click to expand...
So that's 5 patents that Apple developed and 2 patents that Samsung acquired and Apple is the "troll" here...
 
I remember reading a rumor that Ford took a completely "Homer" approach to designing the last version of their successful Ford Escort in the early 90's.

Instead of letting their designers have full reign over the design they asked the public what they felt were the most important features for a car. Were they handling? Dynamics? Fuel efficiency or comfort?

Nope. Having a sunroof!

So Ford designed the car round a sunroof. Released it and it was a total pig. They then spent the next 5 years trying to patch it up mechanically making it one of the most complicated cars that no one liked.

The only version anyone liked was the Cosworth version but that just used a modified bodyshell, the underneath was different.
 
mope54 said:
So that's 5 patents that Apple developed and 2 patents that Samsung acquired and Apple is the "troll" here...
Click to expand...

They are both trolls because stuff like the shit in all 7 patents shouldn't be patentable in the first place. Patent on 'quick links', what the actual fuck ....
 
Thuleman said:
They are both trolls because stuff like the shit in all 7 patents shouldn't be patentable in the first place. Patent on 'quick links', what the actual fuck ....
Click to expand...

What is unfortunate, is that this is the way it has to be under current law. You have to patent every stupid obvious little thing to have ammunition available to counter-sue your competition when they inevitably sue you over their equally stupid patents.
 
mope54 said:
LMAO, gotta love the [H]ate of all things Apple despite the facts:


So that's 5 patents that Apple developed and 2 patents that Samsung acquired and Apple is the "troll" here...
Click to expand...

It's not the hate of all things apple, it is the hate of their legal tactics. I had an apache 6700 back in the day, before the iphone was around. It has slide to unlock as well as click on a number and it would launch the dialer. This stuff has been around for a long time, but apple invented it for sure....right.
 
ndehmer said:
It's not the hate of all things apple, it is the hate of their legal tactics. I had an apache 6700 back in the day, before the iphone was around. It has slide to unlock as well as click on a number and it would launch the dialer. This stuff has been around for a long time, but apple invented it for sure....right.
Click to expand...
this right here is part of the problem...you don't seem to understand how our patent system operates.

Apple didn't, and never claimed to, "invent" the *idea* of a slide to unlock mechanism. They created the way it works on their devices. I can tell you right now there isn't any possible way the two implementations between the apache 6700 and an iPhone (or any modern smartphone, for that matter) to be implemented the same, *identical* way because the Apache had a resistive touchscreen and the iPhone has a capacitive touchscreen.

Of course, that isn't the patent at issue here and Apple isn't suing HTC in this case. In fact, despite much griping and grousing about on the forums, the slide to unlock patent was resolved in HTC's favor. But HTC developing and owning the rights to a patent doesn't give Samsung license to use it...and this is a case between Apple and Samsung so why are you bringing it up?

Now you may think who owns what and the rights to use what where doesn't matter. But it does because that's how things get developed. Corporations spend millions (and more) dollars to engineer how a particular thing *operates*. In this particular case, and herein lies the irony, Apple spend however many millions of dollars to implement a particular way in which their OS picks up on random 0's and 1's and interprets them according to context and then does something with the characters on one's screen. Of course it's so simple and nonsensical to people posting in this thread but they take those phone behaviors for granted and likely don't know the first thing about how to code that particular behavior. It'd be funny if just one of them would post a sample tidbit of code demonstrating just how "easy" it is to get a phone to do that.

Well you see, half the crap they whine about they go and use some of our code indiscriminately without any regard for the work that went into it. In one thread someone was bitching about Apple and he's using a galaxy S and doesn't even seem aware that it I, along with a fairly talented tea devs, worked our butts off to get it to even recognize the sdcard slot. that was long before it enjoyed official cyanogenmod support. but of course, now years later, he's chugging along on a cyanogenmod rom crapping in threads I post in and insulting apple users as unintelligent and meanwhile using the very device that I had a part in making functional for him ;)

In any case, the logic of some people in here is atrocious. If one company develops how a thing *works* and then publishes it (that's the whole point of the patent system) that's not an invitation for another company to just go copy the darn thing. They can use the idea and say wow that function is really cool now let's make a new way of doing it that is of our own ingenuity. That's the very definition of competition and innovation. But if they simply copy it wholesale that's neither innovation nor is it competition. When Apple tells Samsung to go code their own way of opening a capacitive device they aren't stifling innovation, they're compelling Samsung to come up with their own way of doing it. In my household alone there are four or five samsung devices and they all have some form of sliding to unlock so clearly it wasn't that onerous of a feat!

And to make it even funnier in this particular case we have patents that Apple funded and developed in house being called "trolling" and Samsung, who merely bought patents from other companies, suing Apple (which actually *is* the definition of patent trolling). :rolleyes:
 
Your pro-Apple rant slathered in Steve Jobs reality distortion sauce was great for my afternoon laugh.
 
The issue with these fresh out of school Apple noobs is their lack of industry experience and false belief that Apple invented everything when reality is its just evolution of previous works from the 80's and earlier when the focus was more on competition and less on litigation so you had a thriving industry with Commodore, Atari, Apple, TI, etc. I treasure my Apple II series gear from Wozniak era but am embarrassed to associate with the anti-competition litigation-happy Apple and their legion of blind noobs. Litigation is bad for industry innovation and progress.
 
LMFAO, atari was the landmark case that made games' look and feel patentable

yes, fresh out of school apple noobs indeed. quit relying on wikipedia for historical knowledge while trying t insult those of us on the board that are probably twice your age :|
 
mi7chy said:
the 80's and earlier when the focus was more on competition and less on litigation so you had a thriving industry with Commodore, Atari, Apple, TI, etc... Litigation is bad for industry innovation and progress.
Click to expand...

As described in Atari I, the 10NES program is a combination of “lock” software embedded into a chip in the NES gaming console, and “key” software in each Nintendo game cartridge. The lock and key send synchronized encoded data streams back and forth which unlock the console when an authorized game is inserted. When an unauthorized game is inserted, the console remains locked, thus preventing game manufacturers for designing NES-compatible games without receiving keys from Nintendo.

In 1986, Atari began efforts to replicate the 10NES program, hoping to make its own games compatible with Nintendo’s more popular console. When Atari’s attempts to dissect the microchips and reverse engineer the program failed, Atari obtained the source code from the United States Copyright Office. Using this copy of the source code, Atari successfully created its own “Rabbit” program, to mimic the interactions of the Nintendo games / console. Although the Rabbit was developed using a different microprocessor and different computer language, it sent data streams to the Nintendo console identical to those sent by Nintendo games. Since Nintendo could no longer stop Atari from building Nintendo-compatible games technologically, it was determined to stop them legally. This lawsuit followed; Nintendo filed for copyright infringement of the 10NES security program and infringement of U.S. Patent No. 4,799,635 (“the ‘635 patent”).
Click to expand...
-- http://www.patentarcade.com/2005/04/case-atari-v-jsa-c-nd-ill-1983.html

This action for patent infringement concerns an apparatus for horizontal scrolling of a video display, present in Defendant Sega's video games, and U.S. Patent No. 4,445,114 ("the '114 Patent" or "the Patent"), issued April 24, 1984, and owned by Atari.
Click to expand...

-- http://www.leagle.com/decision/19941652869FSupp783_11534.xml/ATARI CORP. v. SEGA OF AMERICA, INC.


Atari sounds like a real paragon of "innovation" there buddy :|
 
lol, and if I remember correctly mi7chy is using the galaxy S that I helped developed the kernel code that he's currently using. what an ungrateful person sitting here calling me names and talking trash about my opinions but he's perfectly willing to use my work freely and benefit from it and enjoy his samsung phone
 
mope54 said:
lol, and if I remember correctly mi7chy is using the galaxy S that I helped developed the kernel code that he's currently using. what an ungrateful person sitting here calling me names and talking trash about my opinions but he's perfectly willing to use my work freely and benefit from it and enjoy his samsung phone
Click to expand...

Wow.... That's a bit off topic. Thanks for your work, I guess.


A lot of companies patent some very stupid and obvious shit. Mostly to use in litigation when it comes time to profit from it. Apple is just one of many.

I bet we could search the patents and find some real doozies. Apple and Samsung are just at each others throats. I bet if they weren't so hell bent on destroying each other, they wouldn't even care about these minor patents.
 
Ur_Mom said:
Wow.... That's a bit off topic. Thanks for your work, I guess.


A lot of companies patent some very stupid and obvious shit. Mostly to use in litigation when it comes time to profit from it. Apple is just one of many.

I bet we could search the patents and find some real doozies. Apple and Samsung are just at each others throats. I bet if they weren't so hell bent on destroying each other, they wouldn't even care about these minor patents.
Click to expand...
would you please explain to us why you think that coding one's OS to understand context driven variables and then actively do something with them is "stupid," "obvious," and "minor?"

When you surf to newegg on your phone and you want to contact someone about an order you go to their contact page and click on the phone number and the phone dials the phone number. Or you click on the email and it brings up a composition window. Or there's an address and it automatically opens up a maps application and gives you directions to the place.


How are those functions trivial when all the OS "sees" are 0's and 1's? *You* see 555-555-5555 as a "phone number" because your brain recognizes patterns and you grew up in the US where that is most likely representative of a phone number. Or it could be (555) 555-5555 or it could be 5555555555...but how would a computer know that without some fairly extensive code under the hood?

Please explain why you think it's a non-issue because that is probably one of the most baffling positions I've encountered on this board and the only explanation I have been able to come up with is that people just like to spew about Apple. Other than that I can't imagine the justification on a tech site of all places, and supposedly from people who have been around since the advent of computing, where these fairly incredible innovations have happened in our lifetimes and even just a couple years ago where we had to go through a kludgy cut and paste operation in order to get a phone number into our phone dialers manually?
 
mope54 said:
How are those functions trivial when all the OS "sees" are 0's and 1's? *You* see 555-555-5555 as a "phone number" because your brain recognizes patterns and you grew up in the US where that is most likely representative of a phone number. Or it could be (555) 555-5555 or it could be 5555555555...but how would a computer know that without some fairly extensive code under the hood?
Click to expand...

Are you coding in binary? Even assembly isn't straight 1's & 0's. I'd think at the least, you'd be using C/C++/Objective C for coding...

Apple gets the hate because that's what the news article is about. Like I said, there are a lot of companies that do this, not just Apple. There will be a lot of shit slinging from Apple & Samsung for a while.

Trivial? Obvious? Nothing to do with the difficulty of the programming. Similar to the wheel - obvious, but at the time it was a real bitch to make. I know most of the people here couldn't make a decent wheel from scratch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top